Page 4016 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: The point, as you understand, Mr Humphries, is that it has to be a personal explanation of your interpretation of things. Please come to that part of it quickly.
MR HUMPHRIES: I have put only one sentence, Madam Speaker. You cannot expect - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Please continue.
MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The fact of life is that there was ambiguous legal advice - - -
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Even if he is supporting my particular position, and I suspect that he is not, I would still rise on this point of order. It is an abuse of the standing orders to debate the issue by way of this particular standing order. He had the opportunity to raise these points during the course of the debate and he failed to do it. He is attempting to do it now.
Mr Kaine: You do not know what he is going to say now.
Mr Berry: I heard the first few sentences. I know exactly, because that is what he said he would do.
Mr Kaine: You heard the first 10 words.
Mr Berry: That is all you have to hear.
MR HUMPHRIES: What is your ruling, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Perhaps if you skip that beginning and come straight to the point, Mr Humphries, we can continue. Please continue with a personal explanation. That means your viewpoint of something that was perhaps misunderstood.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, my statement was always going to be my personal viewpoint along with that line and I will not skip the beginning. Am I required to skip the beginning?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, we have heard it twice. Perhaps you could just come to the third sentence.
MR HUMPHRIES: All right. The fact of life is, Madam Speaker, that this document clearly shows that, as Minister for Health, I had received advice from my department that indicated that there were varying legal interpretations of the situation with respect to the law.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is an argument, Mr Humphries; that is the problem. Will you come to your viewpoint on that; how you were either misrepresented or somehow misunderstood when that was quoted. That is the point of a personal explanation. Would you please proceed with a personal explanation.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I think I am entitled to utter more than one sentence before you judge on that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .